Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2194 (ALL)

Chandra Prakash Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-07-24

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. The petitioner has sought to challenge the legality of an order dated 16 May 2014 passed by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Hardoi. Action has been taken for the recovery of excess payment allegedly made to the petitioner in pursuance of an agreement for the repair of a road. A notice to show cause has been issued to the petitioner for black listing. 2. The grievance, at the present stage, is that copies of the inquiry report submitted on 18 February 2013 by the Chief Engineer to the State Government and another report of the Committee constituted by the Executive Engineer have not been made available. 3. During the course of the hearing, it is common ground that a copy of second report has now been disclosed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit. As regards the first report, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that a copy thereof would be handed over to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner during the course of the day. 4. In order to obviate a plea that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, it would be appropriate to direct that the submission, if any, of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid two reports, may be considered by the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division, PWD, Hardoi and a fresh order may be passed after furnishing to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 5. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall appear before the fourth respondent together with its objection, if any, to the aforesaid reports on 1 August 2014. The fourth respondent would be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, upon furnishing to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard on 1 August 2014, which has been agreed to by the petitioner. To facilitate this exercise and without inquiring into the merits of the impugned order dated 16 May 2014, we set aside the order with liberty to the fourth respondent to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. The petition stands, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.